Do you own an encyclopedia set? A scientific one? An history of science in several volumes?
Do you own an encyclopedia set? A scientific one? An history of science in several volumes?
Luke Barnes
Other urls found in this thread:
nature.com
twitter.com
Christopher Jones
Yep, called it's the internet.
Colton Garcia
Good one faggot.
Yeah I own World Book 1984. Thy're actually better than the internet, much more well written. Of course the big problem is that the info is way outdated. But some things never change so I still have them. Was considering getting the 2016 set.
John Cruz
Just get an online subscription.
Evan Rodriguez
>reading off of a screen
Patricians will always use books. Deal with it.
Josiah Allen
no. i am living encyclopedia with my 100+ IQ
Jonathan Perez
I value my intelligence much more than thousands and thousands of pages of others' opinions, most of which will never be relevant in my life. Saged.
Matthew Perez
>i don't read books
Ethan Taylor
No, because I'm not a roaring twenties millionaire.
Easton Diaz
Investing in a book encyclopedia would be a waste of money because most of it needs to be updated within a few years. Human knowledge is growing exponentially. You'd have to buy a new encoclopedia quickly.
Ask yourself: When you need to look up something, would you rather go through your parents' encyclopedia from the last century or would you rather ask duckduckgo and get the newest information?
Matthew Jones
>Good one faggot.
>Of course the big problem is that the info is way outdated.
Mason Davis
autists wont understand the experience of books is what makes them better. better quality of information, not reading off of a screen, looks nice on your shelf and is generally comfier to read curled up on the sofa. autists wont understand that you dont have to stop using the internet just because you have encyclopaedias.
Tyler Cox
Dude, get an e-reader
Parker Gutierrez
Just print articles, that's what I do.
Easton Reed
pale imitation
Julian Scott
My dad has a set from the 1960s. It's fun to read. There's a website up which I forget which has one from 1911 which is even funner to read.
Juan Williams
Any good mathematical encyclopedia?
David Richardson
>1911
their cancer article was grim
Xavier Wright
Of course we understand the comfort of reading a paperback novel.
what non-autists don't understand, however, is the eagerness to curl up on a couch and read an [math]encyclopedia[/math].
Chase Morris
I saw this encyclopedia once it claimed we detonated nukes in Jupiter and had actual video of it happening. It changed the pattern of Jupiter's stripes and created giant black spots. When I look online for such data it's all gone, missing. Expunged from the digital history books as if it never happened. This is the problem with digital encyclopedias. History can easily be rewritten.
Jason Harris
Britannica isn't relevant since the acquisition by the Americans; Wikipedia is controlled by (((them))), not only around controversial articles but also on more trivial matters (their articles about global warming are a joke). Once again, history is rewritten by the winners, so...
Ethan Phillips
>This is the problem with digital encyclopedias. History can easily be rewritten.
Does it not occur to you that crackpots existed before the digital age, and you read a crackpot encyclopedia?
Wyatt Allen
>World Book 1998 Multimedia Encyclopedia
It had video of the detonations taking place. Are you saying they just lied and made all this shit up? The only conclusion I've drawn is SOMEBODY is lying about what happened. It's foolish to assume who it is without more data. Realistically tho, what does an Encyclopedia gain from making shit up?